My comments on the Sidereal-tropical controversy

December 19, 2002

In a message dated 12/19/2002 1:15:30 PM Central Standard Time,

alfonsoosorio writes:

> Alfonso Osorio

Thank you for that wonderful post! //// chriswing

December 19, 2002

Although this is my first email to this list, I don`t think I have to make an

introduction of who I am , because I had already participated in 2 sidereal

lists and in 2 jyotish lists, so it is probable some of you already know me.

Although it is obvious , as the name of the list indicates it, that this is a

sidereal list, I don`t think we should insult or attack anybody just because he

does not use the sidereal zodiac.

And neither I think they should be invited to quit the list.

Quite the opposite, they should remain in this list, otherwise, how they are

going to find the astrological truth, if they are sent back to the tropical

lists?

But it is my advise to those who defend vehemently the fixed zodiac, that

instead of attacking the movable, they should first try it. You can not

disregard what you had not experimented. In my case, I would never criticize the

japanese astrology because I had not studied it, so I have no moral authority to

disqualify it.

The same applies to those of you who had not tried to decipher a life or an

event with a sidereal zodiac. And it is so simple to do it, with just a click in

your mouse, you can change the zodiac and adopt one of the sidereals. I would

recommend you first try with Krishnamurthy`s or Lahiri`s ayanamsa.

Unfortunately it is not so simple to study hindu astrology. It is said that you

need a whole life time. Maybe that is one of the reasons they believe in

reincarnation.

As I had said in other lists, the panorama and prospects of astrology looks very

dark and confused for me. The proliferation of so many schools and concepts, has

determined that we do not understand each other. Everybody has his own methods

and even his own jargon. This is the modern version of the byblical Babel Tower.

Ed Kohout is totally right when he affirms that the signs do not matter at all.

Since he works with the tropical signs, he can not find any correspondence

between what is indicated in the texts and what happens in the real world.

The first smart western astrologer to notice this, was Morin de Villefranche, on

the XXVII century!

And it is important you all know, that although a lot of studies and researches

had been done, trying to find validation for the meanings traditionally accepted

for the tropical signs ,the results had been negative.

In few words, non of the researches confirm the validity of the sun-sign

astrology, so frequently abused by the tropical astrologers.

But when we shift the zodiac, we start finding SOME and MORE correspondence,

between what were the 3 basic premises of astrology:

1) a planet determines the nature of the experience

2) the sign determines the quality of the experience and

3) the house indicates the area of life.

What, how and were. And the when is determined by the different predictive

techniques such as primary directions, solar returns, planetary

periods(dashas),etc.

In this regard, let me make clear that I do not follow the western

sidereal(Fagan`s) concepts about the houses and that I practice and work with

the meanings of the houses devoloped by the hindu or vedic astrology.

The results I had obtained in my researches with the hindu are more satisfactory

and more conclusive.

But I am not a strict adherent to the rules of the traditional jyotish texts. I

incorporate for my analysis the 3 outer planets, although I do not assign any

rulership to them.

And I had borrowed some sidereal techniques as the solar returns. But it is

important to mention here, that since centuries ago, the hindus also had been

using the solar revolution( varshapal) and that they had elaborated intrincated

techniques for estimating the precise day for an event.

The cases shown by Terese Hamilton are a good example of how the mars-moon

aspect, can lead to different circunstances. The day it would make no

difference, there would be no need of astrologers. You could write just one

astrology cook-book.

The books she recommend are very good, specially Hart De Fouw`s. There are a lot

of hindu books but I would suggest you first try with the ones written by

western authors.

If you start with the hindu authors there is chance you quit. Some come with

many sanscrit words and are outdated. Remember also they have a very different

culture.

As an example of why I prefer Krishnamurthy`s ayanamsa please calculate the

following chart: Jan 18/ 1939 at 8:40 am in MidWest City, Ok.

If you use Fagan`s ayanamsa he would have mars in libra. With Krishnamurthy he

has mars in scorpio, and what is more important mars is now in the same sign

with venus, ruler of the 10th.

This person is a macho guy, a famous military, green beret, who fought in

Vietnam and many other places, and it was a role model for the Rambo character.

Alfonso Osorio

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

December 19, 2002

At 11:05 AM 12/19/02 -0800, Alfonso wrote:

>But it is my advice to those who defend vehemently the fixed zodiac, that

instead of attacking the movable, they should first try it. You can not

disregard what you had not experimented. In my case, I would never

criticize the japanese astrology because I had not studied it, so I have no

moral authority to disqualify it.

Alfonso, some of us here including myself DID use the Tropical zodiac. I

learned astrology from a fine English (Tropical) school and practiced it

for 10 years. I had university degrees in counseling psychology and used

astrology in counseling. I finally changed to the sidereal zodiac

(western-style) and then moved on to Jyotish. And lately I'm studying the

old western astrology which shows there is a definite link between

Hellenistic astrology and Jyotish.

I don't disqualify the Tropical zodiac exactly. I just think that what

Tropical astrologers actually observe in a sign belongs to the underlying

sidereal sign. When the sidereal astrologers are willing to admit this fact

(as I see it), we'll be able to synthesize knowledge about the two zodiacs,

but in the Sidereal signs I expect.

>1) a planet determines the nature of the experience

>

>2) the sign determines the quality of the experience and

>

> 3) the house indicates the area of life.

I have no argument with that.

> And I had borrowed some sidereal techniques as the solar returns.

I do the same thing.

>The cases shown by Terese Hamilton are a good example of how the mars-moon

aspect, can lead to different circunstances. The day it would make no

difference, there would be no need of astrologers. You could write just one

astrology cook-book.

Amen to that.

>As an example of why I prefer Krishnamurthy`s ayanamsa please calculate

the following chart: Jan 18/ 1939 at 8:40 am in MidWest City, Ok.

I've done a lot of this kind of testing, which is why I changed from the

Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa to Krishnamurti.

It's nice to see a thoughtful post here, Alfonso. Thank you.

Terese

December 20, 2002

I finally get to read something that I haven't read before.

Thanks, Alfonso

alfonso osorio <alfonsoosorio wrote: